This evening there was yet another extraordinary council meeting about the proposed ballot for the transfer of council housing.
Since the last meeting the Lib Dem group has grown in size by 50% and in influence by several hundred percent, and after a tedious but well-behaved debate Labour’s amendment was carried by 18 votes to 16.
Several other things had changed since the previous meeting. Although the tenants themselves have always been dead set against any form of change, they have now been joined by the Tenants’ Panel, GOSE, and the shadow board. Even the two local papers were spectacularly off the fence this week.
The Crawley Observer referred to the meeting thus: (On their website)
SO it looks like council bosses may have finally come to their senses – but only after spending more than half a million pounds on a process nobody ever wanted. As their hopes of transferring the council’s housing stock looked to be on the verge of collapse, council chiefs revealed that they had already spent ‘most’ of their whopping £705,000 budget.
The Crawley News said, in its editorial:
The answer should be clear – residents want their homes to stay with the council.
The constant delays to important decisions and threats to services should be solved for once and for all.
Behind everything was the knowledge that if a ballot proceeded it would result in a “No” vote by a wide margin. That, combined with the advice from GOSE, the Tenant’s Panel, the Audit Commission and consultants meant that the Tories really had no choice but to not hold the ballot in March as planned. Instead the recommendation to the Executive was to defer the ballot. The Labour amendment was to sort of take all the polling done so far as an indication that there is no tenant support for transfer and basically act as if there had been a ‘No’ vote. A subtle difference, but one which would make it harder to start the transfer process again for a longer time.
When it came to the vote the Labour and Lib-Dem groups voted for it and the Tories voted against so the amendment was carried, and then on the substantive motion all the Tories voted against and Labour and the Lib-Dems voted for so it was carried to go ahead as a recommendation to the Executive – who were meeting immediately afterwards. Before the meeting ended Bob Lanzer said that he would recommend that the executive followed the council’s recommendation.
The meting itself was a lot calmer than the last one. No jeering and barracking from the gallery, no throat-cutting gestures in the chamber, and not too many rows between the councillors. Instead there was a lot of bickering about side-issues like whether the Labour group knew about teh contents of a second stock condition survey before the last elections, how much blame should go to the New Labour government, and how much blame should go to the previous Labour council.
Trying to wind up the Labour group by blaming the government is waste of energy though – I don’t think any of them agree with the government on this.
It may have been relatively unexciting (I think I would prefer to stay here sniping and fisking than on the floor bickering: much more fun) but it was worth sitting through it to see some smug grins disappear at the final vote.
From my perspective the debate was a pretty good one. One question that’s not been resolved – and I suspect will not be in the next few months – is how/when/if the government will change the rules (again) and put even more pressure on Councils to divest themselves of “Council Housing”.
Brenda Smith quite correctly said that the Labour group in Crawley is opposed to what the Labour government are doing on this. It doesn’t change the fact though that it is this Labour government’s policy.
As an aside over the last few years I know that most/many/all of Crawley’s Labour Councillors have opposed the Iraq War and Post Office closures. All of these are from policies either directly or indirectly implemented by the government of their own party.
I wonder if there is an policy of the government that Crawley’s Labour group actually support? 🙂
As the Labour group in Crawley is opposed to what the Labour party policy is on this – would somebody care to explain why?.
Other Councils around the Country run by Labour dont have the same objection to Labour party policy – what is different about Crawley?
What is different about Crawley ?
Well, methinks it’s something to do with the fact that most Labour Councillors are exactly that – Labour councillors. They are not Neo-Labor councillors (aka Neo-Cons)…
Anyway, I’m not clear – have ‘they’ scrapped the ballot – or deferred it ?
The Labour Group on Crawley isn’t opposed to Labour Party policy on stock transfer – Labour conference has voted repeatedly for councils to have the same ability to get extra funding to improve its housing as housing associations do. It’s not really their fault that the government hasn’t implemented party policy.
You have to appreciate all the different entities here. There is the Labour party itself, the Crawley Labour party, the group of Labour councillors, and the government.
In an ideal world all of them would have the same policies, and all agree with me 🙂 In reality that does not always happen.
The local party’s policy is to have the famous fourth option. That is what we sent our delegates to vote for at the national conference two years running, and what the national party adopted as party policy.
If anyone is out of step it is the government for not adopting the party’s direction.
Gordon – there are loads of government policies which the local party agree with. Nobody is going to agree with every one of their party’s policies: you told me that yourself. We choose our parties based on a general agreement with their aims and policies, or because their policies are closer to our own preferences even if they do not match exactly. Sometimes it could just be that you feel they are the least worst.
And sometimes it can just be that your own favoured party is the one which is closest to you on the issues you feel to be most important.
It also explains how people like Marcella can so easily change parties. Either she did not agree 100% with the Tories before or does not agree 100% with the Lib-Dems now (probably both) but changed her mind based on one or two key areas, or felt that the parties’ relative positions had changed in those areas important to her.
Speaking personally, even where I disagree with some policies I know that other parties may have alternatives I agree with even less.
If we could only feel right belonging to a party whose policies we agreed with 100% there would be no parties in the country with a membership greater than 1.
Anyone who says they agree with every single thing their party does is either lying or does not know everything their party does – and they are probably ambitious and after a safe seat somewhere.
Bugger. Rambling again…
Richard. I’m not sure there is much of a difference really except in timescales. Deferring the ballot would have meant that it could have been resurrected at any time, even in a few months. Scrapped does not mean it would never come up again, but it would not be soon and would probably need some compelling reasons.
I heard an argument that it might have been better to press for the ballot, as a no vote would have much the same effect.
OK…so I take it your “amendment” was for scrapping the ballot, rather than deferring it – so was this accepted by the Executive ?
Yep.
A no vote in a ballot in March may have been rendered null, because of the flaws in the proposal process which led to Wednesday night (apparently it was at Xmas that the Tories were told that GOSE had nixed the thing).
If a ballot had taken place in March, it would have been open to challenge. Be sure that a ‘Yes’ vote would have been seriously challenged. The more likely ‘No’ vote may well have been too – and anyone can do it.
So, better to stop now and tell the government we aren’t going to keep up the charade.
Thanks for the clarification – so we have a Tory administration trying to implement a Labour Government policy that the Labour Party and local Labour Councillors disagree with?
Now who am I supposed to vote for at the next general election?
Well, once Blair goes, the government might (might) change some of its policies. That’s the hope, anyway.
The Labour Party is ‘out of sync’ in Crawley because its MP is too obedient to her NeoLabor Prime Minister – while the rest of her local Party are not.
Really, Richard? Because she’s been on side with us over the 4th option.
I was thinking more globally than locally…
By the way, if not already done so, it might be worth reading The Argus this weekend (Jan 13/14) – full of the Council Housing issue (especially the Letters Page – and, no, before you think it Skuds, I haven’t had a letter printed there!).
From an ‘independent’ point of views, I’m fast concluding this will The Big Issue for May’s elections…
And in the same Argus there is a feature by Jean Calder – someone who I have a lot of time for – “Who will shout for the ordinary man”.
Ignoring the fact that a man was probably responsible for the headline itself – I sense Jean Calder herself would not have appreciated it – she concludes
“So the final recommendation to my fictional candidate is simply this – stand as an independent”.
You know it makes sense 🙂
Skuds – on 11 January you were perfectly correct when you said that “Nobody is going to agree with every one of their party’s policies: you told me that yourself.” The exact quote I’ve used for many years to you an many other people though is “Only a fool or a liar agrees 100% with their party.”
I have never thought that you or Owen were that (sorry – I don’t know all or everybody well enough else in this thread so I’m excluding them for no reason other than that).
However what is “the Labour” view? You yourself said “There is the Labour party itself, the Crawley Labour party, the group of Labour councillors, and the government.” That’s four different viepoints. So is it any wonder that Joe Public has a low opinion of those of us in politics and does anybody actually agree with whatever “the Labour view” is?
Which all goes back to my original remark about people agreeing with a political party – in the scenario you have quoted that could possibly 4 different views. Reading the Crawley Labour Party Website I see that their is (or at least was) a possible 5th viewpoint represented by Robert Hull just to add even more confusiion as to what is “the Labour view”. 🙂
Damn – re-reading what I’ve posted can I put a plea in for this website to get a spillchucker…. 🙁
Gordon – you ask what the ‘Labour View’ is, as there now seems to be 5 different ones! – but isn’t this an astouding political ploy – after all, whatever your views on the subject, Labour (or some part of it), support that view.
Perhaps if the Lib-Dems were as ‘inclusive’ in their policies they might get more support?
removes tongue from cheekAsh – seeing as the Lib Dems are the ‘all things to all men’ party that’s a bit odd – by your reasoning they’d be in a supermajority!
Depending where you live, they have all sorts of different policies – they call it ‘localism’.
As it is, there is no difference between the 4 points of view of Robert Hull, Crawley Labour Party, the Crawley Labour group on the council and the national Labour Party (as at conference) on most issues, and that includes housing. They may express things slightly differently, or promote one aspect more than another, but we all agree with government policy to bring in Decent Homes.
The only difference is that we want local councils to have the same ability to spend money that HA’s would have. We are trying to persuade the government to change their mind, and will continue to.
What is Lib Dem policy on housing anyway? Is it subject to change like the 1% on income tax that they summarily dumped last year?
By the way, Skuds, it took me several goes to get a comment up today, is something wrong with your host?
Owen, how can you expect ‘Ordinary Jo’ or ‘Plain Jane’ to understand :
“We (Labour) are trying to persuade the Government (Labour) to change their mind…”
No wonder 70% of Crawley (mostly Labour-orientated) don’t vote !
No problem with the server that I know of. Probably bandwidth somewhere along the line.
When you talk about localism, do you mean how the Crawley & Horsham Tories talk about keeping Crawley hospital or building a new one, while Crispin Blunt in Reigate complains that it is not closed down yet? (And the national party has no declared policies on anything yet!)
I would have thought that any party can potentially have many opinions at its various levels or in different regions. Ideally policies do not appear fully-formed: they develop as different people throw in their own opinions, discuss them (often ‘robustly’) until a consensus or compromise is reached.
I think most people and levels in the party agree on housing, except for the government, which we are working on. That is one of the reasons why we joined the party, and remain there – to try and influence policy.
Wel, Skuds, if you have the same success as you’ve had in stopping Blair’s war-mongering…
Owen, when you ask the question “What is Lib Dem policy on housing anyway?” you already know the answer. We’ve supported the so called fourth option since it was put to parliament.
So far as “Is it subject to change like the 1% on income tax that they summarily dumped last year?” the answer is that it was NOT summarily dumped. All political parties policy changes over time – hey, look at your party’s change of stance on Europe. Is that 6, 7 or 8 times since Harold Wilson’s time? On that subject my party have been consistantly pro-since it was first mooted at the time Churchill was doing his second stint as PM!
The 1p on Income Tax for additional money to pay for education came about as a result of the party’s policy review pre-the 1992 General Election – the year I stood for parliament in Crawley. Since then we’ve changed from a Tory government to a Labour one. In it’s first year Labour stuck to Tory spending plans and only during it’s second year did it start adding additional money into education. Since then the amount of money for education has gone up (it’s a separate argument as to whether it’s being spent in the right places but the additional money is there). The need for an additional 1p on tax for education is no longer there – so hence the policy change.
As far as “localism” is concerned then yes, we do advocate that some policies can/should/will be different for different parts of the Country. That seems to me sensible – or are you saying the needs and requirements for a small tight urban area like Crawley is the same as that for an inner-city area with more social problems than we have? Or for that matter the same needs as the vast rural and sparcely populated areas of Cumbria or the tourist towns like Blackpool or former sea-side resort areas like Margate/Hastings etc.?
Your call. 🙂
LINK Is an interesting (if partisan) take on the Lib Dems. It mentions the main reason that Jas will not consider voting Lib Dem – the Kennedy character assasination. You guys lost a vote there (we lost it years ago, btw).
At least now I know what your policy is on housing (locally anyway) – thanks for confirming it.
To be honest, I think that the Crawley Lib Dems are nicer than most – but I think that’s because you are my main point of contact, and I’ve seen how the larger Manchester party acts and was very unimpressed.
O bum! I forgot to close the link on that comment!!
That should fix it. Soz
I have gone back and fixed it for you!
As far as the Lib Dems are concerned, I must have been lucky. I have heard all the stories about the dubious election tactics and misleading literature from friends but have not encountered it myself so I find myself less hostile to them than many other Labour people.
Maybe its also a consequence of being at school and hearing about the Lib-Lab pact which always made me connect them more with our side of the fence.
But what prevents me from joining the bandwagon of Labour members who are calling the Lib Dems Tories in disguise is having met some Sussex Lib Dems from outside Crawley. A lot of them became active through a deep-rooted dislike of Thatcher and decided that joining the Labour party in rural Sussex was futile so they joined the Lib Dems instead.
Of course, the party may now be attracting some anyone-but-Blairs just like it used to attract the anyone-but-Thatchers, but they will be temporary supporters I think.
Owen – When you say you at least know now what your policy is on housing (locally anyway) isn’t that a bit specious when you say later thanks for confirming it? Unlike your party we have one policy on this subject rather than Labour’s 4/5 (assuming your bit of Labour still disagrees with your Labour government’ policy – or is it not your Labour government but someone else’s now?).
I’m pleased that you think the Lib Dems locally are nicer than most. Leaving aside your incredible patronising attitude on this (and if you don’t know what I mean substitute “Lib Dems†in your phrase with any other group – Labour, Disabled, Gay, Tory, etc. to see what I mean) but are you sure you want to make any reference to Manchester?
I know more than a few Councillors in Manchester – some are very good friends – and if I was a Labour member I would be extremely embarrassed about being associated in any way shape or form with one or two of the Labour members on that Council.
Skuds – I’m pleased that you thing you have “been lucky†– especially when you go on to talk about “dubious election tactics†from third hand information and not personal experience. Don’t you think that there is more than a small possibility that whoever has passed information on to you may have more than a few sour grapes about them? ie. stating what they have said as fact ’cos they were on the losing side of an election and to do anything else would mean admitting that they were beaten fair and square?
Can I suggest that if you want to see misleading literature then ask Robert Hull on the Housing issue? I still have a copy of the retraction and apology he made on your local party website. Or maybe you would care to ask Doug Mayne about a leaflet that was put out in Northgate some years ago? I still have a copy of the letter from Doug (as agent) apologising and saying that he did not authorise the distribution of this leaflet by the then Labour candidate.
I would have thought Skuds that what prevents you from joining the bandwagon of Labour members who are calling the Lib Dems Tories in disguise is that you’ve got a brain that works. ïÂÅ
All parties attract some anyone-but-ABC/XYZ so yes they will be temporary supporters. It’s happens both for and against me here and no doubt to you and Owen as well in the past. On this issue is there any truth in the story that all political parties in Crawley bar Labour have a category on their canvass cards that’s marked up as “Ours as long as LM is local MP†and Labour have one that’s marked up as “Ours when LM no longer MP�
……and I still think this website needs a spill chuckler – 🙁
No – but I’m thinking of asking for a “ours when TB is no longer PM” category 🙂
A very good friend of mine was a PPC in 1997. In the previous election Labour came second by a decent margin. If you remember, there was a very strong anti-Tory sentiment then and everyone just wanted to vote for whoever would get them out. The local Lib Dems put out leaflets with bar charts on the back showing that they were second, only just behind the Tories and in effect split the vote so that the seat had one of the smallest swings to Labour in the country, because enough voters believed those bar charts.
Admittedly I did not see the leaflets or check the figures myself, but our candidate was someone I went to school with and we speak very frankly between us so he was either telling the truth or believed he was. So its second hand rather than third hand.
As for Tories in disguise, while I may not subscribe to that theory I do believe that there are areas, and Crawley is one of them, where votes for the Lib Dems (and greens, and Respect/SWP/etc) only serve to let in a Tory, which is often exactly not what those voters actually want. Just one of the pitfalls of FPTP I guess.
As for spelling – I am sure you can get a spellcheck extension for Firefox, or even as an add-in for Internet Explorer.
skuds – you say that “where votes for the Lib Dems (and greens, and Respect/SWP/etc) only serve to let in a Tory, which is often exactly not what those voters actually want” which comes across as incredibly patronising.
You are right when you say that somebody who votes Lib-Dem doesnt want a Tory to win, but by the same token they probably dont want Labour to win either.
I know more people who are anti-Labour than pro another party, which is only to be expected as Labour have been in power for 9 years. People surely have the right to vote for whoever they want, if the byproduct is that one of their unfavoured parties get in then thats democracy for you.
Skuds – I can’t comment about the case you quoted without knowing more details but I can think of a scenario where this is actually correct ie. the General Eelction result was as you quoted but the local election results since then showed the situation had changed.
I would however be interested in your thoughts about Hartlepool. At the by-election my party were attacked for giving out “misleading” information about the proposed closure/downgrading of the local hospital. The Labour candidate etc. all said that this was – paraphrased – a load of rubbish and the hospital was not going to be downgraded/closed.
It’s just been anounced that it is to be. 🙁
Ash is quite right, Skuds – Labour people can be “incredibly patronising”, especially also when it comes to local Independent candidates ‘W and NW of Crawley’ 🙂
Patronising? Its not the way it was meant but I can see your point.
Surely if someone is in a constituency where Labour & the Tories are quite close (and now extremely close) and the Lib Dems a long way behind, anyone who actually wanted the Tories to win would vote for them? I know that if I was in rural Sussex in a place where Labour were a distant 3rd I would consider voting for the Lib Dems.
But I’ll admit my mind was more on the Greens and the left-wing parties and trying to imagine their preferences.
Of course, introducing STVs would remove a lot of the guesswork, although I can’t begin to imagine how long it would take Crawley to come to a result given the length of time it takes us to count simple votes.
Gordon – I only know two things about Hartlepool:
1. Jeff Stelling supports Hartelpool United
2. They hang monkeys
However, I could dig out a totally uninformed opinion for you: I’m quite good at that.
I can think of Rochdale where a minority Conservative Group entered into a coalition with Labour for many years to keep out the largest party, the Lib Dems…..after a couple of elections they then went into coalition with the Lib Dems and then Labour again and it’s only now that there is a Lib Dem Council.
Others that come to mind from the last 15-20 years are St Albans, Milton Keynes and Gloucester where formal coalitions or “understandings” kept the Lib Dems out for some years although they were the biggest party. There are many others but the list would get long and boring……
Milton Keynes though was interesting as at one point it was a Lib Dem minority administration – with the Lib Dems being the smallest of the three parties. It then went Labour and is now Lib Dem (just). Harlow is also another interesting one where the Lib Dems were the third party but led a Lib Dem/Conservative coalition. This foundered and it’s now a Labour led Labour/Lib Dem coalition.
Basically any coalition between parties owes more to a good working relationship between the leading Councillors in the parties and NOT to the party label.
So, what does this prove?
Nothing much actually other than not to assume that “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. There are certainly voters who will vote for A to keep out B even though they support C but I would say these are well short of 25% of the voting public. (Nb. I do not include parliamentary by-elections in this as a whole new set of factors comes into play even though that can be the only explantation for Labour getting less than 5% in either the Christchurch or Eastbourne by-elections – sorry can’t find my stats to confirm which one).
Like you I can also dig out a lot of uninformed opinion – and yes, you may if you chose interpret that for my remarks above. 🙂
I figure that you are unlikely to be uninformed on that sort of thing since its part of your day job to know about it all (isn’t it? Correct me if I’m wrong) and you are a political anorak anyway. (No offence intended)
Indirectly. I work for the Lib Dems in Westminster as you know but I’m there in a membership supporting role.
No offence taken re-the anorak comment at all. This is especially so as in the 1950’s/60’s I was one of the orginal “Railway Anoraks” and anoraked and taking train numbers at the end of platform 14 at Clapham Junction Station. As I’ve said many times since we may collectively have been “anoraks” but we created what I think is still the sixth biggest leisure industry in this country – Preserved Steam Railways and all that goes with that.